-
Destructive edits
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “If not “committed / non-committed” then “undoable” indicates a certain relationship with things you are doing in the software. “Destructive” indicates an action that affects media files which the software works with. “Recoverable” files indicate OS level or hardware level things you can do for protection. If I think about teaching, these words help someone to understand what is possible and the implications of their actions, and further, a meaningful model of the various levels at which they are interacting with an NLE and computer. The words lead to understanding, in a way that “destructive timeline” simply doesn’t.”
Well said, Franz.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Finally, as I mentioned before, I think the current nomenclature is important.”
I agree, but if I start talking about “committed edits” to a photographer or a 3D artist, they’ll think I should be committed.
Sorry to keep bringing this up. I’m really not trying to be precious about the word “destructive.” It’s just that the word is already in use in an adjacent discipline in a way you guys don’t like. We are tilting at a windmill here, arguing about the way “destructive” should be used and not acknowledging the way it IS being used. I will have to go back to talking about “destructive vs. non-destructive workflows” as soon as I’m somewhere else.
But in either case, I do think the term “destructive timeline” is meaningless, and it’s part of why I chose FCP X to illustrate what I had originally considered to be a “destructive edit” but will now call a “committed edit.”
After a little more thought on nomenclature, I think I might prefer the term “one-way operation” where we are using “committed” in terms of intuition; I think it captures the mathematically irreversible nature of the operations we’re discussing.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’m not sure image-editing is a good model for NLEs with respect to the implications of each method.”
Of course, this is not the same as saying that you’re sure image-editing is not a good model for NLEs. 🙂
For me, this is one of the things that is most interesting about FCP X: the timeline reflows with every single editorial operation. As you manipulate the objects in the timeline, it is dynamically rearranged according to a few organizing principles (basically down and left until you hit something that blocks you).
The existence of this organizing system (which is fully manual in a traditional open timeline) could more easily accommodate parametric, uncommitted editorial.
I risk an analogy: FCP X’s addition of this organizing system is a bit like adding compositing layers to a simple double-buffer paint system. The added layer of abstraction makes new kinds of tools practical.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “It’s just that the word is already in use in an adjacent discipline in a way you guys don’t like.”
Walter,
I’ve been more or less limiting my thought to NLEs, but actually I am not familiar with exactly how “destructive” is used in image editing – did you outline it? What are the parameters for use? Examples?
Franz.
Edit: for example, I have trouble finding a contradiction of my understanding here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m really not trying to be precious about the word “destructive.” It’s just that the word is already in use in an adjacent discipline in a way you guys don’t like.”
It appears the only difference between how we’re using the term “destructive” in the context of DAWs and NLEs and how photographers use the term has to do with where the source data is stored.
In DAWs and NLEs, an operation is considered destructive if it overwrites original media stored on disk with no undo.
In photography, an operation is considered destructive if it overwrites original pixel information stored in memory with no undo.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “It appears the only difference between how we’re using the term “destructive” in the context of DAWs and NLEs and how photographers use the term has to do with where the source data is stored…. In photography, an operation is considered destructive if it overwrites original pixel information stored in memory with no undo.”
No, undo does not factor in, which was the source of my original confusion and the reason I objected to your stringent definition.
A levels adjustment is considered destructive when applied directly to a layer, even though the operation may be undone via the history stack. A levels adjustment is considered non-destructive when performed via an adjustment layer, modifying the output of the original layer without actually directly altering it.
Likewise, any RAW manipulation is non-destructive, because all RAW adjustments are output-side modifications, not input-side alternations. Making the same manipulation to a raster image is destructive, because it’s baked-in/input-side/committed/one-way.
I understand the importance of the distinction you’re drawing. To Franz’s point, I would have used the word “unrecoverable” for your “destructive.”
I hate to be so bogged down in the terminology. I’d hoped we could have discussed what useful data in an edit is ephemeral by convention, not necessity, and if any of it is worth preserving better through the editorial process.
This is especially interesting to me in the context of FCP X, where we build a structure that, through the consistent application of magnetic reflow to the read-write storyline, systematically compiles a read-only absolute timeline.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Edit: for example, I have trouble finding a contradiction of my understanding here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html“That’s a list of non-destructive workflows, so we should consider the so-called “destructive” workflows with which they stand in contrast.
For example, from your link:
Transforming with Smart Objects: Smart Objects enable nondestructive scaling, rotating, and warping.
When you transform a smart object, the original underlying asset and the transformation applied to it are preserved. So for example, scaling a smart object down to 50% and then back up to 100% in a subsequent operation restores the original.
When you transform a raster layer, the transformation is applied directly to the layer, and the new contents of the layer reflect the results of that transformation. This is considered destructive because the output of the operation replaces the input of the operation.
When you scale a raster layer down to 50%, “committing” the change rewrites the raster and bakes in the transformation. 50% becomes the new 100%, so if you scale up to 200% in a subsequent operation (to attempt to restore the 50% scale to its original 100%) you do not get the original back, but rather an blocky blown-up raster.
Undo (or Step Backward) will get you back where you started, but (with some exception) manipulating the history stack is a global document-wide state change, not a local layer-specific one.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “No, undo does not factor in, which was the source of my original confusion and the reason I objected to your stringent definition.”
Yes, with a bit more research, I see photographers consider destructive any operation that bakes a change into the pixels. I guess that makes sense since they’re primarily concerned with the contents of the frame buffer.
I should add, this difference in concerns is a good argument for why the terms’ meaning must be considered in context, and kept specific to each context. Blurring the meaning between DAWs/NLEs and photography is confusing.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “For me, this is one of the things that is most interesting about FCP X: the timeline reflows with every single editorial operation. As you manipulate the objects in the timeline, it is dynamically rearranged according to a few organizing principles (basically down and left until you hit something that blocks you).”
This is a great argument for why I consider the FCPX magnetic timeline highly destructive.
If your editing workflow requires placing media objects in an absolute, external frame-of-reference for time, having the NLE rearrange those objects with every operation feels like editing in quicksand.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “A levels adjustment is considered destructive when applied directly to a layer, even though the operation may be undone via the history stack.”
Walter,
Well, one thing that is interesting is that I can’t find the term “destructive edit” at adobe.com except with references to “modifying file information”.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?loc=en_us&term=destructive%20edit&cat=support&product=photoshop&self=1
(I didn’t search through more than one page, so I may have missed more)“Non-destructive” editing is used often and interchangeably with phrases like “the original image layer is not altered. You can go back and tweak the adjustments and no image information is discarded.”
So I’m not sure that “destructive editing” is such a widespread term in image editing base on that (very limited) sample. In any case, Adobe seem to be careful about it’s use where they often use “non-destructive” as a term.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “That’s a list of non-destructive workflows, so we should consider the so-called “destructive” workflows with which they stand in contrast.”
Walter,
Well, maybe.
I don’t travel in enough image-editing circles to know. But as I point out below Adobe.com seems pretty specific when it uses the term “destructive”.
Franz.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up